April 6, 2008

“There's this ritual in Washington, the Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders, about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor explained. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The first time a Secretary of State has visited the Wednesday Meeting.”

...“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with. The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30-45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is,” Senor said. “The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, I get it, that person could be president tomorrow. Condi Rice is an option.”

"It is possible. In fact, I guess I'm not talking out of school when I say in our green room last week when Senator Lieberman was on he said, well, perhaps Condi and of course Lieberman is very close."

There's a video clip at the second link, and the discussion is all about whether McCain wants to saddle himself with George Bush's Iraq policy. Maybe there's more on the transcript, but clearly, Condoleezza Rice would shake up the racial and gender politics.

57 comments:

I think McCain needs to distance himself, in every possible way, from the Bush administration. Choosing Rice would be, I think, a disastrous mistake.

The left has already had great success promulgating the "McCain = Bush" idea; I had a Pakistani cab driver yesterday who said it. It was interesting hearing his opinions. He though Obama was inexperienced and an overrated speaker. He said that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were/are much better speakers and that people fall all over Obama as a great orator simply because many of them are too young to remember anyone better.

For a long time I thought Ms. Rice would be a wonderful President for the USA. That position has been steadily leached out of my mind by her apparent commitment to the mind rotting positions of the professional cookie pushers (Professional diplomats) at Foggy Bottom (The State Department) and her absolute refusal to denote the Saudi Family-Government as the leader in spreading anti-Western hate literature in the World and the largest block to cutting off funds to terrorist groups.

"[T]he discussion is all about whether McCain wants to saddle himself with George Bush's Iraq policy."

I'm inclined to agree with Palladian (apart from the suggestion that McCain and Bush have ben successfully linked - they've been trying, but it has serious credibility problems and no one really believes it). The problem with Rice is that she can too easily be identified with Bush's Iraq policy. That may not be fair, in that she may have had very little influence over it, but the perception can be created, and Bush's Iraq policy (and I do mean Bush's not Rumsfeld's) was in the main a failure, as McCain himself has repeatedly pointed out, albeit trying lately to shift the blame onto Rumsfeld.

Sec. Rice would be a magnificent choice: Smart as a whip and double tough.

In terms of the election, she peels off black votes; puts the lie to any claim that McCain's a racist; can blame errors in Iraq on Rumsfeld, if need be; helps win female voters, plays the piano, and she can probably drink most Russians under the table.

Imagine a VP debate between her and Obama. She'd take him to church and doxologize all over him.

All Condi has to do is peel off, say, 10% of blacks and women who otherwise would have voted for the Democratic candidate. That black church lady voter will be torn between the handsome son Obama and the upright Condi.

Conservatives have to vote for McCain. They have no place else to go, particularly after the horns get glued on the Dem. nominee

rcocean said..."I think Liebermann would be a good choice. Or Lindsey Graham."

rhhardin said..."Lieberman is probably the best choice out there."

This sort of talk is, respectfully, deeply flawed. McCain already has moderates and independents - or at least, he has as many as he is going to get, and those few exceptions to that are not going to be pulled in by the veep choice. The impediment to his winning the election is to keep the base on board, to, which requires picking a veep that conservatives (and I mean real conservatives, not moderates like me who just look conservative in the fairly moderate company here) can be enthusiastic about. For him to nominate a Democrat as his running mate (or worse yet, a Republican who shares what the base sees as McCain's heretical views on immigration) would guarantee defeat.

I'm not dead set against Rice, the only question I have is whether, all told, she's a net positive for the ticket and whether there's anyone else who's more of a net positive. If the former, pick her. If not, forget her.

Another problem that ought to be on the table is that Rice plays to an existing McCain strength: foreign policy. Shouldn't we be talking about balancing the ticket and having someone with strong interest in economic and domestic policy? Not necessarily Gingrich, I realize (albeit with some bitterness) that that's a pipe dream, but someone who can cover ground McCain lacks?

I think that Simon is right, Dr. Rice would cover McCain's strengths, not his weaknesses. She would make more sense with someone with domestic credentials, but not foreign and defense ones.

My pick is still Romney as VP, because he not only covers the domestic side, but is a very bright policy wonk who could likely out debate anyone the Democrats put up, including Hillary and Obama, on economic, health care, etc. issues. (and he is the one with whom I thought that Rice would have been good).

The problem with Gingrich is that he is too divisive, and in your face. I, being conservative, love the way his mind seems to work. But his negatives are likely way too high, even now. And if not, would likely jump right back up there.

Also, while he is a domestic policy wonk, he too lacks executive experience. I really think a governor is what is needed.

You have it completely backwards. The conservatives (the base) will vote for McCain no matter what. McCain needs the independent vote. And the way to get independents is to nominate a Hawkish Democrat or a Black woman. Condi would also be able to attack Obama with impunity without the worry of being called a racist. And Joe L. would bring in the Jewish vote.

rcocean, that holds only if Clinton is the Dem nominee (which, concededly, is a fity-fifty shot), because those people who most hate McCain hate Clinton even more. But if Obama is the nominee, I think you'd be making a serious mistake to underestimate the dislike for McCain in some circles. I'm not saying that their dislike makes sense, but there are plenty of people out there in the base who will not vote for McCain, period, unless they see the alternative as too ghastly to contemplate, and for whatever reason, most people do not seem to share my visceral dislike for Obama.

Oh, and I also think your notion that Rice could attack Obama without fear of being called a racist is far too optimistic. She will be branded, albeit in code words for the mass market, but explicitly by Amanda Marcotte and Jeremiah Wright types, as a house nigger, a tool of the white man, an uncle tom, &c. Imagine the vitriol leveled at black Republicans - Clarence Thomas and Ken Blackwell, to name but two - who didn't pose so significant a threat to the left's plantation worldview.

Condi would be a terrible choice. She's proven to be rather poor at her job and would a huge liability. If McCain is going to go with someone who has only served in a subordinate position, Michael Steele would be a far better choice.

(Yes, I know many protest that Steele has won only a single election as a Lieutenant Governor, but he can explain conservatism better than just about anyone I've heard. More importantly, he knows how to play second fiddle.)

"She will be branded, albeit in code words for the mass market, but explicitly by Amanda Marcotte and Jeremiah Wright types, as a house nigger, a tool of the white man, an uncle tom, &c. Imagine the vitriol leveled at black Republicans - Clarence Thomas and Ken Blackwell, to name but two - who didn't pose so significant a threat to the left's plantation worldview."

No doubt. But blacks and the extreme Left will vote Democrat no matter what. Rice would give "Street cred" to McCain among the soccer moms and all the white- bread independents who would otherwise feel "racist" if they voted for McCain over Obama.

Simon, I merely note the elephant in the room. I mean, it's not like McCain is gonna nominate Donna Shalala -- but are conservative republicans who aren't thrilled with McCain going to be susceptible to a LesboCondi whispering campaign -- because you know one will happen.

Unless she's seen out on the town with some eligible bachelor. When the Washington Post starts running Condi is dating notes in the Style section, then I'll take the Condi is lobbying for the VP slot stories seriously.

What I find interesting is that the left has been able to brand Clarence Thomas as bad and evil -- a black man who grew up in the segregated south and who, admittedly with the help of affirmative action, absolutely picked himself up by the boot straps. I think we can agree that the same basic card would be played against Rice, a black lesbian who also grew up in the segregated south and was also helped by affirmative action.

Considering that the Democrats will have either a woman or an African-American on their ticket (or both), McCain's gotta go with somebody other than a white guy in a blue suit.

Another reason she'll help McCain is that she will be ferociously attacked by the African-American intelligensia for not being black 'enough.' This will further weird out white people, creating sympathy for her.

"I've been black all my life," Rice has said. "Nobody needs to tell me how to be black."

I am only saying: I don't believe Condi Rice is actively campaigning for VP. For the reasons I stated. I don't think the US voters are going to elect a gay person to a Nationwide Office (Does anyone here seriously argue that they will? Based on what?) -- and Condi is blind if she doesn't see how she could be perceived as gay. If she is actually actively campaigning for the VP slot, she would have taken steps to address how she might be perceived. She hasn't. Thus she's not campaigning for the position.

The thing that matters about Condi, straight or gay, is that she keeps her sexual life private. I think most Republicans will support a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to Condi's sexuality.

Her sexuality will only become a problem when the left accuses her of beong gay, and then attacks her for not making that the central tenet of her political outlook.

I also believe that these attacks will be just as counterproductive as the attacks on her as being not Black enough.

As for the path of foreign policy she has set us on, yes there have been many mistakes - urban ops are the most difficult to wage, both militarily and publicly. The question is WHAT has Dr. Rice learned from those mistakes.

I think the recent success of COIN approach demonstrates how much our learning curve has increased. We need to perfect our tactics; we will need them to take down Iran before they go nuclear.

It bears mentioning that both GW and Laura were playing up Condi's presidentiality a few years back, at the height of the Valerie Plame affair. I suspected that they were considering a Cheney resignation "for health reasons". It's not hard to believe that the same guy who liked Meiers as top judge would like Condi as top senator.

I will go to my grave saying that the Meiers nomination was a brilliant piece of politics.

1. The Bush administration knew that the Democrats would try to kill the nominee, given that Alito was the second consecutive "conservative" justice. Politically, Democrats needed to do this just as Republicans would have had to in the same situation.

2. Meiers was fundamentally unqualified for the job.

3. Bush sent her up to get pilloried. "The nominee must have decent credentials and judicial experience," Democrats said. "We will only accept such a nominee."

I've heard that Condi is a great speaker and so may appeal to people in debates or longer exposure than sound bites. Mostly when we see her she's "working" which means she's supporting her boss and talking about his policies. And she's not responsible for war policy.

As for being gay... There's heterosexual, homosexual and a third choice which is "not interested." Granted, I think that happens less often but it *is* a legitimate orientation. There is also "heterosexual but driven" which I think accounts for a number of unattached professional women.

Whatever the case I don't think anyone cares very much if she is or not gay with the exception of those who just love to out Republicans and if they haven't been able to do that yet I don't think they'll manage it just because she runs for VP.

And no, maybe she won't get the black vote away from Obama but I think she could get the white vote without much trouble at all.

Sorry for the hyperbole. I should have just gone to the last paragraph.

The triangulation was 1) get a pliable person at Justice, 2) get the war crimes amnesty bill passed before losing the house and senate in 2006, 3) get a pliable friend at SCOTUS. For awhile they got 2 out of 3.

John, I think it was that they were more focussed on other issues (Katrina, Iraq) and Bush neither understood the issues nor wanted a fight. That certainly seems to be the upshot of most insider accounts.

Miss Smithers to Montgomery Bush. Has as many questions to answer on foreign policy as Rumsfeld, Uncle Dick, and Doug Feith do if Executive Privilege is ever waived.

Never elected in her life to any office.

No domestic policy experience. No economic experience.

Great if you think that a Condi pick will ensure the popular Bush Presidency gets an endorsement for another 4 years...Or, as a signal of Republican desperation and cynical "identity politics", the delusion she will amass huge black or female votes as Bush's devoted spinster lackey or as the Stepin Fetchit of the Corporatists..And as brilliant as parachuting in the deranged Preacher Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against Obama in the Illinois contest.

McCain picks her? Suicide.*********************Same with posters that love Joe, the "I love Israel so much I kiss Bush for his wars, while I am so hard left on many issues Gore worried I'd pass as a Centrist" Lieberman. If the safety and welfare of Israel and the "noble purple-fingered freedom lover Iraqi" matter more than America's interests or the worker in Florida, Michigan, Ohio's future, and you are happy with a pro-abortion zealot - Lieberman is your man - because he kissed America's Churchill and Defender of multi-millionaire Corporatists on the cheek.***************Lindsay, the "Human Lawyer-Weasel" is best known as the guy that said anyone that opposed McCain-Teddy "immigration reform" was a racist.He faces a primary challenge and is regarded as the Republican version of pretty Breck Boy Edwards.VP?? Even more disastrous than Rice.

McCain needs a centrist-to-conservative VP candidate with big bona-fides on domestic economic issue, and ability to get votes in Swing States and areas outside the South. Not a foreign policy person who thinks the goal of America is to "save other nations peoples and in doing so, further enrich the richest 1%"

I don't buy the 'gay' stuff. For one thing, Condi isn't. I remember that she dated one of the Denver Broncos linemen some years back (I think it might have been Mark Schlereth.) But beyond that, so what? People have voted for openly gay congressmen before (e.g. Barney Frank and Jim Kolbe) and I doubt if anyone is going to give two cents what her sexual orientation is.

But I do think that if she is picked, it will largely be seen as a reaction to the possibility of a black/woman ticket on the Democratic side (both of whom will have, if it occurs, legitimately earned their place on the ticket.) It hurt Walter Mondale in 1984 when he was seen as reaching to pick a female congresswoman, and I don't see how this won't be considered a reach by McCain. Further, as some here have pointed out, if the economy continues to slide and given McCain's recent statement where he admitted not knowing much about the economy he could be absolutely hammered on 'lunch-bucket' issues if he picks a foreign-policy wonk like Condi. Keep in mind that the one major GOP primary where the tough midwestern economy was the main issue (Michigan), McCain lost.

Curious about whether or not Secretary's of State sought higher office later, noticed that six Presidents before Lincoln had been Secretary of State (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan) and zero since.

Sec of State hasn't been a path to another office, it seems to be more a reward for an old pro in their waning days (think Eagleberger, Christopher, Shultz, etc), or a couple Generals (Marshall, Haig, Powell), or guys who need help getting laid by really hot chicks (Kissinger, William Jennings Bryan).

Rice doesn't exactly fit the mold of Sec of State of the recent past, and she does bring a great many positives to a GOP ticket, along with plenty of negatives, as would any candidate.

As far as her not balancing the ticket (being both McCain and Rice would be seen as much stronger in foreign relations than any possible Dem counterpart), maybe imbalance would be a good tactic.

Sometimes a great offense, also makes a pretty decent defense, too. Score a lot of points in your area of strength, and you may win over voters by default, plus when it comes to the economy, Dems tend to overestimate the attractiveness of interventionism to most voters.

As far as gay or not gay, imagine you are at a dinner party, and two relatively hot people of the same gender begin drunkenly making out.

If it's two women, nobody's going to be grossed out, and if anything, they'll be cheered on (especially if it's in a collegiate setting), if it's two guys, different story. It's a double standard, but it's a pretty widespread double standard.

If Dem surrogates (the candidates would never broach the subject directly) insinuate away on that issue, it will turn away more voters from the Democratic nominee than it would from the GOP, so by all means should Sec. Rice run for VP, go ahead and declare as loudly as possible that she [insert your favorite colloqualism for one woman orally satisfying another here].

"If it's two women, nobody's going to be grossed out, and if anything, they'll be cheered on (especially if it's in a collegiate setting), if it's two guys, different story. It's a double standard, but it's a pretty widespread double standard."

Real, actual lesbians don't usually "perform" for hooting straight men at parties. Straight men "cheer" intimate contact between two women only so far as they imagine that it's a show put on for their satisfaction and (of course!) only if the women are "hot". If there's the perception that the women aren't actually interested in the men at all and in fact are disgusted by them, the "cheering" will subside rather quickly.

If some of the hooting frat boys want to make out with or fuck each other (which they frequently do, at least more frequently than people care to admit), it has to be either sublimated into violence, ritualized into frat hazing, or kept "discreet".

What any of this has to do with Condoleeza Rice, I'm not sure. But the cynical realpolitik banter here sure is off-putting.

That bit was an attempt at humor, Palladian is absolutely right about both counts as to the reasons why women are hooted and cheered on, and what's behind comparable manly reluctance.

But the main point is that the insinuation game won't work against Condi should she be a candidate (and part of the reason isn't because of how real lesbians are, but how those hooting straight males perceive their fantasies of what lesbians are like), but if a lifelong 'bachelor' of a certain type were to run for VP, an insinuation campaign could actually prove effective. Even though Edwards was happily married, there was a touch of homophobia in how he was talked about by the opposition (of course, he blew any sympathy he might have gotten with his ham-fisted treatment of Cheney's daughter in the VP debate).

I never thought of the Silky Pony stuff as homophobic really. But then I don't think of homosexuals as necessarily effeminate. Oh, the guy at the airport who corrected my "princess wave" was pretty obviously gay but he wasn't *pretty*.

I think Rice would be a good VP pick if she is, in fact, a good speaker when given a podium. The baggage she brings is already being put onto Bush Mark Two (ie., McCain) *anyway* and the usual suspects seem to be eating that up. Worrying about them is sort of pointless.

Getting someone good on domestic policy might seem like a necessary plan but really... the VP doesn't DO anything. What does the VP do other than be handy in case the President dies suddenly of old age?

Edward's too-pretty from 2004 really stuck, though, because this time around he seemed to have deliberately bad hair any time I saw him. Really a bad cut. Like he was *trying* but it was already too late.

section9 said... The war will remain the central issue of this campaign. Period.

Iraq has slipped down to 4th or 5th place in the polls, behind economic matters. With 81% of Americans saying we are going in the wrong direction, Iraq was again way down the list in reasons given. Loss of good jobs, trade deficits, dying major industrial states, most in the Swing category, health isurance crisis, energy crisis, domestic corruption

Of those that believe that Iraq is still the only issue or obsession America should address - the vast majority are "anti" and would find "Two-maybe 3-Fer" Condi their last frickkin'choice for VP next to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Uncle Dick, or R. Paul Bremer.

Secondly, McCain needs to pick someone who average voters believe can be President. Condi is believable to voters as President.

For her great work on Iraq, and her brilliance in forging closer ties with Europe, Russia, China and the Vast Moderate Muslim population of "freedom-lovers"? Maybe you are especially fond of her role in Hamas election, or how she was able to get Iran to back down?Could it be since she was never interested in elective office, or ever was involved in domestic matters - that she never ran a bad campaign or said somehing dumb about economic issues past declaring that oil would be cheap after "victory" in Iraq? If just being black, fairly smart, and female is enough to be VP, why not Oprah? Oprah was elected to office in public school and is a self-made billionaire with executive skills.

Believable? Well, yes if you believe Iraq and American foreign policy are great, the Republicans great strength is to run two on the ticket whose main interest is in problems outside the USA. And, if you see Condi as a stand-in, a signal - that by selecting Bush's closest advisor you want 4 more years of Bushism..

The most important factor in the campaign will ultimately be McCain's age. Moreso that with most other presidents, there is a high statistical chance he will either die before his term ends or suffer illness sufficient to have him resign. Condi made it to President of Stanford at a very young age and did a very good job. I agree that she is not one who people would worry about being up to the job (i.e. Dan Quayle). What is curious is that to this point she has never had any interest in any elected office. Perhaps she sees this as a path to the Commissioner of the NFL job she hungers for.

I believe Condoleeza Rice would be both and interesting and detrimental choice for McCain. She is so closely associated with Bush's Iraq disaster and she is known for defending the war until the end. I understand that picking her would be good in terms of haveing a black woman contending for the vice presidency, but her politics are not right for the "Withdrawing from Iraq" era that the country is headed toward. Intersting choice, but McCain would loose.